Month: July 2011

The next item to be considered was item 7 – APP/11/00487 – Cleared Site, ORRETS MEADOW ROAD, WOODCHURCH, CH49 9BJ – Proposed development of 14no. 3bedroom houses.

The officer said it was for fourteen two storey dwellings, there were restrictions on housing in the area and the interim housing policy applied. However the applicant had shown there was a local housing need for affordable housing. The design was acceptable and it was recommended for approval subject to a s.106 agreement.

Cllr Mitchell said there had been a series of similar applications in the area, but the original approved layout had not been adhered to. He hoped the applicant and agent would adhere to the layout recommended by Wirral Council. He said there would be a benefit to double-check this otherwise it would be a fait accompli. He asked if a condition could be added?

The officer said the developer was tied into the plans by the decision notice, however there could be a special decision regarding the plans however it was not normal to check.

Cllr Mitchell said it had been done last time.
The Chair said on this occasion they should consider it.
The officer said they’d put an informative in [as part of the decision notice]. The Chair said he was happy. Cllr Mitchell and Cllr Salter recommended it for approval. All councillors voted for it.

Tha applicant said there were many examples of changes to the extension. He said it was an improvement and would lead to property values going up. He was aware of the effects of external regulations and had adapted it to reduce overshadowing and intrusion. The existing eaves lines had been changed and there had been removal of the gable end to the boundary with 26. This had reduced the effective height by 1.6m. There was a loss of sunlight to the rear of 26, but he had attempted to follow the guidance notes and Unitary Development Plan about windows to reduce overlooking and to make sure the building line didn’t come within one metre of the boundary.

The materials of the extension would match existing materials. There would be some effect on neighbouring properties. Any loss of amenity was regrettable, but he maintained a positive relationship with the local community. Approving the application would be a positive for his family and community.

The Chair asked for the impact on the house next door, he asked if there was a ward councillor to speak but there wasn’t. Cllr Salter said the main concern was loss of light, he had looked into the dimensions, there was little loss of light. The effect on next door was very little, however until it was built they would never know.

The Chair said the site visit had been beneficial and officers recommended it for approval. Cllr Peter Johnson proposed it be approved, seconded by Cllr Salter.

All councillors except Cllr Stuart Kelly (who abstained) voted for the application so it was approved.

The petitioner continued by saying she was against the size and close proximity. She said planning permission had been relaxed for large families, but that was not the case here. In her view less regulation had led to a “build anything you like” if there was “similar in the area”. She couldn’t think of anything that obstructed light and privacy locally to this extent and asked, “Where would it end?”

She said the rules don’t apply to detached property, but if had been a semi-detached they would be required to stick to 2.5m. She said if they lived in a semi-detached property it would not be allowed as it would be too close and the length was a problem as well. The petitioner said there needs to be a detached rule. She asked “Why it was ok, why had they been disregarded and what would it take for the regulations to change?” so that “things can be changed a little”.

The Chair asked if the applicant was present. He was and introduced himself as Tim Swan of 24 Dibbinsdale Road. He said he had lived there since July 1994 and it had been in a poor state and needed updating. In 1999 there had been an extension, the proposal was for 3/4 bedrooms, 165 Sq m and a garage. He hoped to build on top of the first floor with 31 Sq m. The plot was 500 Sq m, this occupied 125 Sq m. He was proud he had developed and maintained the property for over seventeen years. His children had attended local schools. However it “doesn’t meet the needs of the family”. He wanted to ensure the property met the future needs.

The Chair welcomed people to the Planning Committee meeting and introduced himself as David Elderton. He pointed out the elected councillors would be making decisions but there were also planning officers and legal officers to advise as and if necessary.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.

The Chair asked for any declarations of interest. Cllr Realey declared a prejudicial interest in item 14 as she was referred to, she said she couldn’t recall what she had said but she’d rather stay out.

There were no requests for site visits.

The agenda was rearranged to take into account members of the public present for each item.

The first item was item 6 – APP/11/00449 – 24 DIBBINSDALE ROAD, BROMBOROUGH, CH63 0HH – Rear 1st floor extension.

The Chair told the petitioner that she had up to five minutes. She introduced herself as Kim of 26 Dibbinsdale Road which was next door to number 24. She also said she was speaking for a Mr & Mrs Kirby of 22 Dibbinsdale Road. She thanked the Planning Committee for the opportunity to address them but said she “would’ve liked the opportunity to see for themselves” the site. She had been told planning officers had assumed she was on holiday, which had not been the case. She said the petitioners can’t see the logic of what was envisaged. She commented on the “sheer size of the development” which she thought was “3.85m not 3.2m, nearly 4m, a double storey with a roof which dominates the line cast by the path of the sun”. She said it decreased the value of their homes, she also felt it was overdevelopment of the property and would lead to lack of privacy.